July 31, 2008

An Interesting Comment on the Privilege-to-Avoid-Subpoenas Argument

Posted by Damozel | I found this comment at the end of Larissa Alexandrovna's post (cited in my previous note). To quote Jeeves, it touches the matter with a needle:

Karl Rove claims it's a presidential prerogative to prevent him from obeying lawful subpoenas from Congress.

The Attorney General of the United States says...

MUKASEY: If you're talking about a contempt citation based on Mr. Bolten's failure to appear...

WEXLER: Yes.

MUKASEY: ... in response to a direction by the president that he not
appear, the answer is no. Because he can't violate that request.

"Can't violate that request"?!? Says who and with whose army?

What if someone chooses to violate it? It's Congress that has a
sergeant-at-arms to enforce its subpoenas, should it ever reclaim that
withered limb.

The White House has . . . the Justice Department. Is AG Mukasey
suggesting his DOJ would ensure a former staffer "can't violate that
request"?

If that's the law, is that what the AG would enforce? Or does
"can't" mean they count on no one squealing while they employ a
ridiculously obtuse excuse?

To which Alexandrovna replies:

Not only can he violate the request, we learned from Nixon's case and
his attempts to get judicial backing for his all-powerful claims that
the Executive had no such power involving criminal investigation or
investigations of criminal allegations by WH officials. That is why
John Dean not only did testify but why his testimony was key.

Rove is a coward, a career criminal who behind the big boys can
boast a big game, but when asked to stand alone, like all bullies, runs
home...